In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

I've already read the Halcro and Wavac reviews in TAS and SP.

Did they have suitable speed, detail and pace ?

"(T)ranscendently neutral" and "astonishing measured performance" for
the Halcro; the Wavac made the flute solo in "Monday, Monday" a
"compelling musical performance...."

I was pulling your leg slightly.

No problem. There's an overused anonymous quote for this kind of thing:
"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."

I'm curious how a reviewer can talk of a
'measured performance' by ear alone !

I don't know, but the quote was from the "Measurements" section.

How diiferent are these 2 DACs btw ? I'm not up to date wuth them.

The thread took a little detour to 'expensive amps'. The most expensive
DAC I remember from Stereophile would be dCS.

Stephen

In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Eeyore wrote:

I've already read the Halcro and Wavac reviews in TAS and SP.

Did they have suitable speed, detail and pace ?

"(T)ranscendently neutral" and "astonishing measured performance" for
the Halcro; the Wavac made the flute solo in "Monday, Monday" a
"compelling musical performance...."

Make that "California Dreamin' ".

Stephen

"Eeyore"
wrote
in message
Arny Krueger wrote:

wrote in message
oups.com

I have done the same and I have discussed it wih people
who actually do hearing reearch for a living. The common
opinion I get from actual research scientists in the
field of human hearing are pretty much the same. If it
aint peer reviewed it's junk as frar as science is
concered and it is highly unlikely that audio jounalists
or audiophiles would be able to do tests that would
stand up to peer review.

I don't think you understand the problem, Scott. It is
not about audio journalists and audiophiles doing tests
that would stand up to peer review, it is about audio
journalists and audiophiles doing tests stand up to the
cold light of day. Without a typical audiophile's
suspended disbelief, most of the alleged listening
evaluations and opinions published in high end magazines
and web sites are well beyond the pale.

I had an interesting chat with a guy who's into high-end
audio last night.

We've had some of those in the SMWTMS club over the years.

One of our newer members is the founder of DCM.

http://www.dcmspeakers.com/heritage.htm

You'd be amused to hear how they 'persuade' ppl to buy
kit !

Pehaps, but remember I used to be in the biz. I'm sure some new, amusing
tricks have been developed since.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:


I look forward to a magazine-purchased Halcro-Wavac
comparison in S&V.


I was under the impression that equipment was loaned to
magazines for review. Is there a special surcharge for
reviewing the more expensive models?

Arny criticized Atkinson because Stereophile borrows
while S&V buys review samples, so I was having some fun.

Never said any such thing.

At any rate, it was delusional fun. AFAIK S&V gets review samples from
vendors, same as ever.

While buying avoids one kind of bias for inexpensive
gear, a magazine with "fractions of a million dollars"
investments would have an obvious interest in the resale
value of the reviewed devices.

False claim based on false premise.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article

. com,
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article
, Rob
[snip]

The kind of research you are talking about is simply
to expensive and time consuming for reviewers or
consmers to do.

It does take time and care. But apart from that the
expense is not really any different.


No it is quite different and to do them right there is
substantial expense.

Ahh, the Atkinson defense. Remember, this is the guy
who reviews power amps that allegedly sell for
fractions of a million dollars, but can't afford the
wherewithall that competing magazines like Stereo
Review and its sequel Sound and Vision have used for
their DBTs in the past.

I look forward to a magazine-purchased Halcro-Wavac
comparison in S&V.

Why hold S&V to a higher standard than TAS or SP?

I've already read the Halcro and Wavac reviews in TAS and
SP.

Meaning what?

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore

wrote:

I've already read the Halcro and Wavac reviews in TAS
and SP.

Did they have suitable speed, detail and pace ?

"(T)ranscendently neutral" and "astonishing measured
performance" for the Halcro;

I'm surprised that they didn't ream it on the grounds that it measured good
but sounded bad. Opportunity for posturing missed.

the Wavac made the flute
solo in "Monday, Monday" a "compelling musical
performance...."

And if you believe that...

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
. com,
wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:


I look forward to a magazine-purchased Halcro-Wavac
comparison in S&V.


I was under the impression that equipment was loaned to
magazines for review. Is there a special surcharge for
reviewing the more expensive models?

Arny criticized Atkinson because Stereophile borrows
while S&V buys review samples, so I was having some fun.

Never said any such thing.

"Ahh, the Atkinson defense. Remember, this is the guy who reviews power
amps that allegedly sell for fractions of a million dollars, but can't
afford the wherewithall that competing magazines like Stereo Review and
its sequel Sound and Vision have used for their DBTs in the past."

There's the quote. I stand corrected.

At any rate, it was delusional fun. AFAIK S&V gets review samples from
vendors, same as ever.

While buying avoids one kind of bias for inexpensive
gear, a magazine with "fractions of a million dollars"
investments would have an obvious interest in the resale
value of the reviewed devices.

False claim based on false premise.

Upon further review, it seems you were comparing apples and oranges, as
they say, by juxtaposing the false premise that Stereophile buys its
review samples and the assumption that Stereophile can't afford to do
DBTs.

Did Stereo Review and S&V fund DBTs? I know they've published reports of
them.

Stephen

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
, "Arny
Krueger" wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com
Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article

. com,
wrote:

Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article
, Rob
[snip]

The kind of research you are talking about is simply
to expensive and time consuming for reviewers or
consmers to do.

It does take time and care. But apart from that the
expense is not really any different.


No it is quite different and to do them right there is
substantial expense.

Ahh, the Atkinson defense. Remember, this is the guy
who reviews power amps that allegedly sell for
fractions of a million dollars, but can't afford the
wherewithall that competing magazines like Stereo
Review and its sequel Sound and Vision have used for
their DBTs in the past.

I look forward to a magazine-purchased Halcro-Wavac
comparison in S&V.

Why hold S&V to a higher standard than TAS or SP?

I've already read the Halcro and Wavac reviews in TAS and
SP.

Meaning what?

Still looking forward to S&V's reviews.

Stephen

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Eeyore

wrote:

I've already read the Halcro and Wavac reviews in TAS
and SP.

Did they have suitable speed, detail and pace ?

"(T)ranscendently neutral" and "astonishing measured
performance" for the Halcro;

I'm surprised that they didn't ream it on the grounds that it measured good
but sounded bad. Opportunity for posturing missed.

the Wavac made the flute
solo in "Monday, Monday" a "compelling musical
performance...."

And if you believe that...

I don't. It was "California Dreamin' "

Stephen

MINe 109 wrote:

Did Stereo Review and S&V fund DBTs? I know they've published reports of
them.


They played around with them but to the best of my knowledge never did
them as a matter of course in reviewing any component. IOW their
*equipment reviews* were DBT free. Can't say that I blame them.



Scott